Mr. BRADLEY of California. In other words, it is your idea that because of the fact your records are not good the Government should lay itself open to hospital care merely upon the sayso of the individual? Mr. NORTON. I didn't say that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BRADLEY of California. Well, what do you mean? Mr. NORTON. As I said, you might be doing the individual an injustice by turning him down for lack of records. Mr. BRADLEY of California. We recognize that. We do injustices all the way through life in all kinds of cases. The Supreme Court does injustices in cases, we know that. How are you going to protect the Government and the taxpayer and not take the chance of some injustice? Mr. NORTON. That, Mr. Chairman, is the problem of Congress, and not mine. Mr. BRADLEY of California. I am trying to pin it down. What is your contention? Mr. NORTON. I would be liberal in judging such cases; an obvious fraud; no. Mr. JACKSON. How about any fraud? Mr. NORTON. Well, it has to be obvious to be a fraud in my mind. Mr. JACKSON. Does it have to be an obvious fraud? Mr. BROPHY. Most frauds are obvious. Mr. BRADLEY of California. This is the wording I was thinking of: "If the chairman finds, subject to appeal * * * that injury or disease was incurred in or aggravated by maritime service" it seems to me that is so wide open that you could bring anything in any time. Mr. NORTON. I believe you will find it just as wide open in other veterans' bills, Mr. Chairman. Mr.JACKSON. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the Maritime Commission in connection with that section has any proposed method by which they would make those findings? In other words, is there a representative from the Commission here that might indicate that to the committee? Mr. BRADLEY of California. We will get out that information as soon as we get to it. Mr. NORTON. I have a suggestion to make, if I may. Mr. BRADLEY of California. Proceed, sir. Mr. NORTON. The presumption is that if a man is injured to the extent where he is going to be bothered further when he gets in port he will go to a marine hospital and there would be some record of it there. Mr. JACKSON. I am trying to find out what the standard would be, the standards to be followed by the Commission. In making findings and determinations they would follow certain general criteria on which they would base their decisions. Mr. BRADLEY of California. We will have to bring that out with the Maritime Commission, I appreciate that. I was simply trying to bring out the general thoughts of the witness in that matter. Have you anything more you would like to say to us before we adjourn for the day? Mr. NORTON. I would like you gentlemen to ask me a few questions you have asked previous witnesses yesterday and today. For instance, the contention seems to be that the merchantman objected to going in the armed services. Frankly, I think the shoe is on the other foot. The Navy had a great job to do and it did it well. The Navy just couldn't, in my opinion, run the merchant service successfully on Navy standards. We ran the merchant service with very few men. We did not have the military bearing of the armed services, that is true, we couldn't, we just didn't have the men all the time. Think how many men it would have taken for the merchant service had the Navy manned the ship along Navy lines. Three times as many men. We would have had 750,000 men instead of a quarter of a million. Mr. MALONEY. Did you object at the time to a merger of the merchant marine with the Navy, you personally? Mr. NORTON. I am an ex-Navy man myself. I have always had the highest regard for the Navy. Mr. MALONEY. But answer the question, did you at that time? Mr. NORTON. Certainly not, sir. Mr. MALONEY. You didn't object? Mr. NORTON. Certainly not. Mr. MALONEY. You understand my question. The question is, did you object to the merchant marine being merged with the Navy at the time of the war? Mr. NORTON. I would have disapproved of the merchant service being merged directly with the Navy and run on Navy lines because I am confident it would have been unsuccessful. However, I am now and I always have been in favor of the merchant service being a service run, controlled, and operated by the Government on military lines. Mr. BRADLEY of California. In other words, you are in favor of nationalization of the merchant service? Mr. NORTON. I am in favor of the nationalization of the merchant service, giving them the same status as the other services, the obligations and the duties. Mr. BRADLEY of California. Is that peacetime or wartime, or what? Mr. NORTON. If we are to preserve the merchant service we cannot preserve it under present conditions without extensive subsidies. Mr. BRADLEY of California. I imagine there are different opinions along that line, but we are glad to have your opinion in that respect. Gentlemen, if you have no further questions we have charged up exactly 1 hour against the proponents of the bill this morning. Mr. NORTON. You understand, gentlemen, I am here to answer ques tions and I would welcome them. Mr. BRADLEY of California. Unfortunately the House is about to take up one of the major bills and we have to be there. Mr. NORTON. Tomorrow morning, if you wish to question me, I will be here. Mr. BRADLEY of California. I don't know whether there are any other questions or not. Mr. BROPHY. He wanted to know why we did not ask him the questions we asked other people, but he made his statement straightforward and did not dress it up any. Mr. NORTON. In fact, I would welcome answering questions as to alleged communism, and so on. Mr. BRADLEY of California. It is not our purpose to investigate communism, we have plenty of people doing that right now. Mr. NORTON. I might give you a new angle on it, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BRADLEY of California. I am trying to stick strictly to the issues. Mr. NORTON. Yes; but the merchantmen are going to be judged by the reports you hear. I would welcome the opportunity to dispel a great many of those rumors. Mr. BRADLEY of California. I doubt if you will find any of the gentlemen will judge the merchant marine by what he hears outside. He will judge by what he hears right in this committee room. Mr. NORTON. For that reason I would like to be questioned and get it on the record. Mr. BRADLEY of California. Will Mr. Ruane be here tomorrow morning? Mr. RUANE. Not if I don't have to. I have made plans to get back home, but if it is necessary for me to here I will be. Mr. BRADLEY of California. We will try to meet as quickly after 10 o'clock as possible and perhaps we will be able to meet at 10 o'clock. Mr. BROPHY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman has to go back he can prepare a statement and have somebody else enter it into the record. Mr. BRADLEY of California. Since you are here if you care to prepare a statement and have it read tomorrow morning we would be very glad to have it read. Mr. RUANE. If I am not here I will prepare my statement, which is very simple and very short concerning World War I and World War II and my experience and the things I went through. If I am not here I will submit a statement. Mr. BRADLEY of California. We will be very glad to have it read into the record. I hesitate to have statements read when the witness is not present, but since you are here we would be glad to have you prepare a statement and have somebody else read it. Mr. NORTON. Do you desire me here in the morning, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BRADLEY of California. I don't know whether there are any other questions but if you could be here we would be pleased to have you. The committee will stand adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12:20 p. m., the committee adjourned until the following day, Wednesday, May 14, 1947, at 10 a. m.) 61933-47-6 SEAMEN'S BILL OF RIGHTS WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 1947 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE No. 1 OF THE COMMITTEE Washington, D. C. The subcommittee convened at 10 a. m., Hon. Willis W. Bradley, chairman, presiding. Mr. BRADLEY of California. The committee will come to order. We will resume hearings on H. R. 476. May I say to you now, in starting, that the full committee will meet tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock to consider various bills which have been passed on by subcommittees for the purpose of getting them to the floor of the House. That meeting will probably take about an hour, so the prospects are that we shall not be able to meet until 11 o'clock tomorrow. We shall try to meet, however, as soon as the full committee meeting is finished." May I say also that I want to adjourn today as near noon as possible so we can hold a subcommittee meeting with regard to other matters. Yesterday, when we adjourned, it was found that the next witness this morning would be Mr. Ruane. Is Mr. Ruane present? (No response.) Mr. BRADLEY of California. He was going to leave a statement. Do you have it, captain? Captain NORTON. Yes, sir. Mr. BRADLEY of California. Will you present it in place of Mr. Ruane by reading it just as though you were the witness? STATEMENT OF M. J. RUANE, MERCHANT MARINE VETERANS' ASSOCIATION (READ BY CAPTAIN NORTON) My name is Michael J. Ruane. I am national finance officer of the Merchant Marine Veterans' Association of the United States. I am also a member of the Knights of Columbus and Father Durellette Fourth Degree Assembly of New England, and the Young Men's Catholic Temperance Society of Salem, Mass. In World War I the United States was not ready with Navy and Army to undertake the job that was cut out for it. The Congress of the United States passed a bill to appropriate over $7,000,000 for recruiting and training of merchantmen. These men had to be a citizen or a naturalized citizen before they could serve on board any ship flying the American flag. We had to go through a strict physical examination before the men could join the merchant service. Re |